Pages

Sunday, July 24, 2011

Confusion As Government Policy

But that doesn't work if the government does not know what it is saying, how to say it, or does not know what everyone thought they said.

For example, how do young children develop when their parents or their teachers are chronically inconsistent?

What do they learn from an example of punishing them for something they told them it was ok for them to do a bit earlier?

They learn to not trust authority, because confusion is not a foundation for trust in any way shape or form.

On the medical marijuana front, the Obama Administration meets the old Indian adage "forked man speaks with white tongue", because the Obama Administration has said:

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration will not seek to arrest medical marijuana users and suppliers as long as they conform to state laws, under new policy guidelines to be sent to federal prosecutors Monday.

Two Justice Department officials described the new policy to The Associated Press, saying prosecutors will be told it is not a good use of their time to arrest people who use or provide medical marijuana in strict compliance with state laws.

The new policy is a significant departure from the Bush administration, which insisted it would continue to enforce federal anti-pot laws regardless of state codes.

(Huffington Post, October 2009, emphasis added). That induced the potential for a consistency in states that wanted to pass laws licensing all such distribution.

Now the Obama administration is muddying the waters, leaving the hope of a clear policy behind in the dust, yes, in the cloudy dust of confusion:

This will certainly have a chilling effect on the types of businesses that open in medical marijuana states (and rest assured, they will continue to open). In this way, it is a huge step back from the Ogden memo.

If the spirit of the Ogden memo was to create a sense of consistency in federal enforcement, to let patients and those who supply their medicine feel safe within their own states, and make states feel confident crafting their own laws to best control medical marijuana, then Cole’s statement is a major reversal.

But is it open season on dispensaries? Probably not.

Just because the DOJ has said that they can and may prosecute anyone involved in medical marijuana distribution, does not mean that they will. If the DOJ is publicly saying that this new statement does not reflect a change in policy, there is no guarantee that they are going to suddenly start prosecuting legitimate businesses in places with clear regulations to determine their compliance with state law – especially in the case of smaller operations.

(Opposing Views). Yet, last week state licensed small operators providing medical marijuana to patients with doctor's prescriptions were indicted in the State of Washington:

July 20, 2011 - Jerry Laberdee, Dennis Whited, Russell Blake, Charles Wright and Jon Vivian have been indicted on federal charges that arose from a crackdown on medical marijuana dispensaries in Spokane, Washington earlier this year. The charges carry maximum penalties of 20 years in prison and fines up to $250,000.

(California NORML). Actually, the largest penalty in that three-count indictment calls for a minimum 5 years to a maximum of 40 years in prison, followed by 4 years to life of "supervised release", a form of parole / probation.

It is as if these people who were relying on public policy statements of the federal government, as well as complying with state law, are now being treated as harsh as murderers are (the Norway mass murderer can only get 21 years), for relying on government statements, then, based on those statements, going forth to help people in chronic, doctor verified, pain.

It appears that there was a vortex of un-American entrapment, in as much as it appears that these medicinal servants were sucked into some political train wreck by confused government propaganda, which is a dysfunctional policy that sucks to high heaven in any supposed democracy!

To destroy these American lives with such a hypocritical state of confusion makes it criminal IMO; so I can see no logical reason for the "government" to expect any trust, henceforth, from the populace.

(c) Copyright

All original material is copyrighted by Dredd Blog. You may quote or use the material so long as there is a link back to Dredd Blog for every post you use. This is, among other things, to verify that no Dredd Blog text was changed. It must remain the same, no editing. Note that Dredd Blog has no commercial purpose. If it so happens that Dredd Blog may quote copyrighted material from other writers, it is only for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research."Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

--the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

--the nature of the copyrighted work;

--the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole;

--and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors." (17 U.S. Code § 107)